Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Sheesh. And they aren't even worth eating

Grew up down in SoCal, rarely did we hook a halibut when fishing in the bays. The State instituted a 21" min size limit to allow the fish to grow to adulthood and spawn a time or two before being subject to harvest. If not mistaken, California halibut mature around 18", so a 21" limit gave them a season or two to spawn.

10 years later when I fished in San Diego bay, it was uncommon to NOT hook halibut, mainly shorts but the occasional legal one. Seems to me it worked pretty well.

Similar thing happened in Chesapeake Bay too. Years ago the various jurisdictions there had different size limits. One or two had a size limit the allowed the take of fish that weren't of spawning age. Populations in the Bay were on the verge of crashing. Seems, again as I recall, the interested parties got together and used a limit that allowed fish to spawn at least once before being eligible for harvest. Worked pretty good from what I've heard.

Imagine shooting spotted fawns and seeing what happens to you local deer population.

I agree.

We don't throw small fish back if they are fugged up.

Thank you!





To be clear, I'm not advocating poaching, I understand the need for bag and creel limits, and I rarely keep trout any more. I just don't like sanctimonious or pompous people.

And I'll say it again, I've fished bodies of water that were over-populated with stunted trout, all the same size. Putting any kind of dent in those populations is a good thing, and most often the species is brook trout. They spawn when they're 1-2 years old in some places.

Fly fishermen in general in the midwest are elitist dicks. I had one tell me to get out of my own stream one time, he didnt realize that we owned the access around it (99.9% in wisconsin is public land access to trout streams) To make a point, we told him to take his ass home and not come back, for the rest of the season we wouldnt let anyone in there that had a fly rod, only grandpas with kids fished that creek. Sometimes the letter of the law "misspells" the intent. Generally im all for following bag limits and C&R but fish that are gonna die dont play into that for me. Same as I dont have a problem with someone down on their luck shooting a doe out of season to feed their family.

Prezactly, I hope they confisticated His filet knife, if that’s what he used.

I could do better than that, schit faced, with a dull knife In the dark and blindfolded.

Jim, that's a great way to do things, and as a fish biologist I agree with not wasting the resource.

The biggest issue is the "lowest common denominator" deal.

I'm sure your family would just keep injured fish. Unfortunately, there are those folks who's attitude is " I paid for a license, rod, bait, lures, gas for the boat. I'll just "injure" the 27 shorts we caught and take them home"

It's the same for the commercial folks who have to toss "bycatch". If it weren't for the few who would target "bycatch" because they might bring a better price, it likely wouldn't be an issue.

Re: the size limit thing, it's hard to get across to some people. Fishing a jetty down in SoCal once and reeled up a short halibut, 19" maybe 20". Got ready to toss it back and had multiple folks tell me I was crazy, they'd take that in a minute, etc etc. A few were from SE Asia (think this was in the late 70's) and I'm sure they saw any protein source as edible.

I think the best folks I've had to deal with were in the Pac NW. "My daddy and granddaddy used to pitchfork them salmons up on the bank. And now I have to only take one a day and record it on a card, and when I reach "x" for the season I have to stop".

Try getting it thru to them that if their ancestors had not pitchforked them up to the bank, that there weren't fishwheels and dams every 40-80 miles on the big rivers, that there wasn't logging and overgrazing in the spawning and rearing areas, that there weren't 10 different species of introduced predatory fish in the rivers along with non-native crawdads in some places, that there weren't as many leaking septic tanks along the spawning streams, or folks tossing the trash in the nearest defile so that the spring flood could wash it all down to the big river where it would never be seen again (by them at least), and maybe mostly when paps and pawpaw were around the population of the PNW was all of a million or so, total, including Injuns. Oops, I forgot hydraulic mining in some watersheds, that never hurt a stream for spawning, eh?

Some of those folks look back with glazed over eyes and say "I still think I should be able to catch as many salmon as I can. It's not like I waste 'em, we smoke and can them".

As someone else here mentioned, tossing an injured "short" back will not mean it goes to waste. Ma Nature doesn't waste much.

If a party keeps a couple of dead fish for a fry, they wont need to kill as many more for dinner.

^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^

Late to jump in here. Not preaching or anything, but the truly moral and ethical way to deal with the undersized but mortally wounded fish is to throw it back (as the law demands) but also count it towards your limit. In other words, to consider your daily limit as the number of fish killed - not just how many taken home.

This is sport fishing, not subsistence fishing. For most of us, anyway.

jag, that works great in principle.

the problem is too many unprincipled people in the world.

There are those who would keep a lip hooked, lightly played, still healthy "short", which could be released unharmed with an >80% chance of survival, and say it was injured or dead when they brought it up.

Kind of like wounding an animal on a hunt only to never find it? Tag filled, right.

A bit, Val, but not quite. A probably wounded but not recovered game animal may well either have been only slightly grazed or missed entirely. But a bleeding fish is probably a goner. And more importantly it was "in hand" to determine that.

Californians are always most concerned with following government regulations.....

Good eating fish! One of my favorites!
Cod and halibut are up there on my list to......

Dryfly,

Not fish, not your state.


I have had a top Game biologist in this state tell me that they
are sent to do population studies, and make reports and recommendations.

The Game Commission very frequently makes political, not scientist based
decisions. And seasons/limits do not reflect the science. All I will say, they might still be doing it, and need the job.

Dillon,

Totally get it, and I agree. I’ve seen it first hand, especially in Maine. The problem is that sometimes the recommendations they ignore aren’t in favor of the game. They favor the bag limits for the takers. Regardless of who they favor it is better than the alternative, which is no limits at all. Even with limits you’re going to get those people I alluded to before, who don't think the limits apply to them. They figure they’re the only ones who think that way so there no harm. Problem is, right after he takes thirty or or forty fish out of a brook, pond, or river, along comes another guy with the same mentality right behind him. Then another, then another. See what I mean? Can’t tell you how many guys I’ve run into on the water that would scratch their heads and tell you about all the fish they used to pull out of a given area but couldn’t figure out why the place had tanked.

That’s the issue. Lots of guys think they know better than the folks who actually study this stuff. We have examples of them right here. I think I hurt one or two feelings in this thread. Has nothing to do with how you fish. Has everything to do with how many you keep vs. how many the resource can absorb losing in a given time. Some places are over run with stunted fish and need liberal to no limits. Another can’t sustain any and maybe should be C&R. That’s what biologists get paid to figure out.

One of my favorite spots had a one fish limit, and was artificial lure only. Had a local population of some of the nicest wild ‘bows I’ve seen anywhere, along with huge native Brook Trout. Some moron gave the place place up on the net on an old fishing site and the place blew up. Used to find empty plastic worm containers all over the place. We begged the wardens to patrol it more often and they did the best they could but the spot was pretty a pretty long haul off the main onto logging roads to get to. They just didn't have the resources to patrol it effectively.

Went from a paradise to a Schitt hole within a couple years.

Nah,

most of the ones I know here are more concerned about doing the right thing.

Do you folks have fish in Iowa? Any cold mountain streams there for trout? Any native salmon? An ocean perhaps?

That's what we get for having a representative type of government.

If not mistaken, there are still counties in Cali who's Supervisors determine whether or not there will be an antlerless deer hunt. Even against the desires of the game agencies (and insurance companies?).

In areas of NW coast of Cali, back in the 90's, it was very politically charged to suggest a moratorium on fishing salmon and steelhead in order to allow sufficient adults to return and perhaps rebuild the population. Tackle merchants, motels, campgrounds etc needed the business of fishing folks every year. Never mind those folks might not have a chance in hell of catching a fish. Just don' t close the season.

Huh. I guess its no big deal.


I figured I killed the dang thing...we had better eat it. Didn't know the right thing to do would be to toss it back.

Not worried about getting a ticket....however I suppose some would.